No, I don't believe it does. In the novel, he's working on a book about the history of the hotel--it's one of the things Kubrick, in my opinion, screws up about the story. The malign force of the hotel feels less insidious. It convinces Jack that he deserves to be special and then breaks his heart by wanting his son more.

The Shining, great a movie as it is, really should be credited as "inspired by" the novel, rather than "based on."

Never read the book, and the film didn't do much for me. I'm still annoyed that they killed Scatman Crothers.

Well, that's another deviation from the book. In the book, his character fights off the mental manipulations of the Hotel and rescues everyone but Jack, who gets blown up by the exploding boiler in a "fire, not ice" climax. It's clear that Jack is *possessed*, and there's a scene where his real, "good" personality emerges one last time to say goodbye to Danny before being taken over forever by the Hotel.

Apparently King and Kubrick cordially disliked each other, or at least their world view.

On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can. You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots, which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.

Sure you can see "clear lines" - they're local horizons where the ground dips down and then rises again. And despite this, you know what? You can match the views in Apollo photographs against maps of the landing sites - they match.

Quote

We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

Ah yes, NASA can pull off the most amazing bit of fakery in the 20th century, and they somehow failed to notice the evidence you can spot. The thing is, if those brief flashes above the astronauts are supposed to be wires for Peter Pan rigs, why don't the antennas sticking out of the tops of their backpacks also sometimes reflect sunlight.

This is exactly the same problem as people claiming some bright light in the sky in the west just after sunset must be an alien spacecraft: if that bright light isn't Venus, then where's Venus?

Quote

Quote

“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road? Because I have. I've also seen people driving on beaches. Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving. Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another. Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

Another example of Cambo humour?

Quote

Quote

“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints. Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

Wow, so all the people who tested the LM during and after construction - its electrical systems, its environmental systems, its reaction control system, its engines, and all the rest of it - they all didn't have a clue? Please tell me, how do you load hypergolic chemicals into LM fuel tanks and run its engine and measure the fuel flow rates and calculate its thrust and somehow have that part of a fake?

Quote

Quote

“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?

A smiley goes a long way.

Quote

Quote

“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.

Dig away. We'll wait.

[SNIP]

Quote

Quote

“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

There, how hard was it, making an admission like that?

Of course, the problem with your hypothetical explanations is the one we've pointed out earlier - what spacecraft, and who launched it and operated it and why haven't they come forward in the decades since? Plus any spacecraft transmitting while in lunar orbit would have its radio transmission frequencies shift in measurable ways which would differ from the actual orbiting CM or the LM stationary on the Moon's surface. Sorry, you lose. Again.

Quote

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

Yeah, no. There are plenty of people on this site who've done the leg work to test stuff for themselves. Bob B tested from first principles that (for example) the LM had enough thrust and fuel to make it into lunar orbit. I checked copies of the "West Australian" newspaper to confirm that the Coke Bottle claim made on the Aulis site was a load of cobblers.

You, on the other hand, sometimes Google something that you're pretty sure backs you up...or you read it somewhere.

Quote

The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

*golf applause*

Very good, Sherlock Holmes. Now please explain what you've done to eliminate every other possible explanation for the change in colour.

Quote

As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

Oh, give me a break. How much footage do you want of weightless astronauts that can't be faked in the Vomit Comet?

Whereas I think you are the dogs’ [email protected]@cks, as without your unwitting help, I probably wouldn’t have gone back over this evidence, so thanks again for supplying me with the ammunition I needed to kick all your sorry little butts! Oh, the irony! Although the man was a dick, and maybe a fraud, because of the way he obtained the odd interview, which would also make him a liar, all I can say is, it takes one to know one.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.

Quote

Quote

“All three of your videos involve the use of CGI”

“Prove it”

There are instances of obvious fakery on board the alleged ISS, even today, so it is only logical to assume that all of it is a combination of CGI and simulation in a plane.

WARNING! The naughty man, talking on this video says a bad word.

Oh, stop it, please, I may burst with laughter. You manage to find one dodgy conspiracy theory video and somehow manage to miss the dozens of other videos showing periods of minutes and longer where people are obviously weightless.

Quote

I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

Quote

Quote

“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

Dear Lord, never mind my assumptions, where do you pull your assumptions from? Why would there only be bare rock for miles?

Quote

Quote

“As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine”

I never read a word of that article, I just seen the title and posted it. I was going with my assumption that Russia must have been pretty certain they never went, but the fact that the Russians never made a song and dance about it, even going to the lengths of congratulating them on their astonishing achievements, tells me that the Cold War wasn’t as reported, as far as Apollo was concerned anyway. I think you are grossly underestimating the powers of governments and possibly an even higher, unseen power, who knows?

Wow. Higher, unseen power. Spooky. Almost as spooky as linking an article you didn't bother to read.

In the meantime, in the reality that the rest of us inhabit, how about you have a chat to some RN submariners from decades gone by and see how well you go telling them the Cold War they served in was fake.

Quote

The [video] with the watch and the burrito, the longest portion of uncut film was 27 seconds. Why so many cuts, when the film would’ve been the same length without the cuts? Do I have to tell you how it was done? So I may be wrong about the use of CGI on that one.

Gee, a video you actually watched. Well folks, you read it here first - sometimes it is possible to make Cambo do some actual research.

And yes, 27 seconds would probably be manageable on a Vomit Comet. Of course, that means that the Mythbusters would have to be in on the fake too, along with the chef and everyone in the production company. And I'm sure they'd never spill the beans. Nope. Not a chance. Not with all that MONEY!

Quote

Did you not wonder why the person running round the ring, doesn’t float away from the ring every time he takes a step? No gravity means weightless and therefore there would only be his momentum holding him to the ring, which would work with, let’s say a bicycle, but not a person running. It would be easier to do in earth gravity. Even Stanley Kubrick realised this, five years earlier, which is why the characters in 2001 had Velcro on the soles of their shoes.

Su-u-ure, and see how fast the hostess and Dave Bowman move around their respective rings, compared with the Skylab astronaut? And if you can't work out why the astronaut doesn't float away, look again at the direction his feet push off each time he takes a step.

Quote

In videos from Skylab, it’s very rare to see the entire ring, but if you watch from 3:15 in the second video, you’ll notice the ring is angled inwards, so it is narrower in diameter at the top than the bottom, and no, it’s not an illusion. Let’s see if your deluded brain can work out why it was made that way.

And unfortunately, Cambo, what you keep on missing is that while you think each video proves a point for you, the video proves you wrong in plenty of other ways.

In the first video (Skylab 1), note that the astronauts move in all three dimensions, including moving around behind the floor screen we can see through: so we know that can't be done with wires. Plus, it was recorded live, so it wasn't recorded ahead of time. Plus, it lasts several minutes, so it wasn't done on a Vomit Comet. Next theory please.

In the second video, sure, it's an impressive effort by those people in the wind tunnel. But both you and the person making the video seem to have missed a couple of vital points. For one, watch how the clothes of the wind tunnel people flutter in the wind - the Skylab astronauts' clothes don't do that. For another, the wind tunnel people don't speak, and we don't get to hear how loud the dang thing is - the Skylab astronauts are talking throughout. For another, you can see the path the air takes in the wind tunnel - where's the equivalent in the Skylab?

Plus the person who made the video is really bad at maths - if Skylab was really 30 feet in diameter as the narrator claims then five people standing (floating) head to toe to could span the room. That clearly isn't the case from watching the astronauts. That room's actual diameter was closer to 21 feet, which makes a lot more sense given the size of the astronauts. As for how it was launched - they went in that massive rocket you saw.

Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens.The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 08:24:33 AM by AtomicDog »

Logged

"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens.The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.

It's hard to understand the lack of understanding, or even basic common sense, that would allow anyone to think that you could realistically simulate low gravity environments using a wind tunnel. Even the name itself gives a very strong clue as to what the conditions are like in the air stream

Logged

Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake.

Logged

"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

They weren't when I was there a couple of months back.....

Looks like they took a break and poised for you.

Logged

Truth needs no defense. Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.Eugene Cernan

...the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots...

And how did you determine this? Do you realize we have stereo-pair images from several lunar landscapes that allow us to measure accurately the distance to objects in the scene? Do you understand that we have parallax-controllable sets of images? Show me the math.

Quote

...telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.

And we know the reasons why distances are hard to perceive on the Moon. There is no intervening atmosphere, which was known even back in da Vinci's day to attenuate tonal range over distance. There is no weathering of rocks, which is a size cue. And apparent size is one of the strongest depth cues. And there are no familiar features like vegetation, which is another size/distance cue. Given that we know so much about what affects depth perception, it's disingenuous of you simply to ignore the best explanation in favor of a farfetched hoax theory.

Quote

We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

The problem with your "strong evidence of wires" is that the wires we use in film and theater are carbon-coated and don't shine, and it has been this way since the 1940s. I'm a Foy-certified flying technician, and I designed and built the flyrig for the 1000-seat theater I sometimes work in. I'm also familiar with the proprietary Cirque du Soleil flyrigs. But don't take my word for it. Go get a good Blu-Ray transfer of Mary Poppins from a 70mm print. It dates to the same time as the Moon landings. Have a look at Dick Van Dyke's wire-assisted dance dressed as a rag doll for the Baron's birthday. Can you see the wires? Only if you look very, very carefully and you have a good high-def television. Even back in 1969 Hollywood knew how to conceal wires to the point where they don't register on a 70mm negative and a set lit with a hundred kilowatts. And you're telling us NASA is stupid enough to use shiny wires that can be seen on 16mm film and field-sequential television. No, film producers of that era weren't that stupid.

Quote

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

Because hands-on experience and correct, adjudicated knowledge are better than watching television. I live in the desert. I'm also an engineer, which means working with graded and sifted particulates from time to time. Dust is simply ubiquitous, and what I see in the lunar videos bears no resemblance to how I see dust, sand, and general particulates behave in an Earth environment.

Quote

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

It's clear you've never been within ten miles of any actual advanced engineering and manufacturing facility. Since aerospace engineering is principally what I do for a living, and what I've done for 30 years, please tell me all about how airplanes and spacecraft are actually assembled. Please go into as much detail as you need to get your point across, because I guarantee there is no chance you'll be talking over my head. And the regulars here love to hear the details.

The "designers" you speak of -- anonymous in your story -- were actually already giants in the industry: Tom Kelly, Max Faget, Bill Tindall, Charles Draper, etc. They worked for companies that already had long and glorious histories. Their reputations were already made. Now in hoax circles no one knows any of the important names, except of course for Wernher von Braun. No hoax claimant has yet given a convincing reason why all these made men would risk their reputations by agreeing to help perpetrate a hoax which, if they were caught, would amount to criminal behavior. It's like asking a millionaire if he wants to go pick pockets at the train station. They have no incentive whatsoever to go along with a hoax and every incentive not to.

Quote

Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

Except I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about. Nor would he have agreed to do any such project on those terms. He wasn't just someone else's photographer. Frewin insists Kubrick would not be interested in any project over which he didn't have substantial if not full control. And this is consistent with all the other people I've interviewed who worked with Kubrick.

Quote

The jumper on its own could be just coincidence...

And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set.

Quote

...it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.

...on a page full of misspellings intended to show Shelly Duvall just how unhinged her husband has become. You haven't explained why the "obvious" interpretation is not the simple, parsimonious one suggested by the plot of the movie the scene comes from. "A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission.

Quote

Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you...

Or rather, once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them. People do this all the time to support any number of non-conspiratorial fan theories. Work on a real film just once in your life and you'll see that there simply isn't time or material available to have intended all the Easter eggs people say they see.

Quote

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive...

Or so you say. Until they come here and attempt it, you can't say that for sure.

Quote

...which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT.

I don't debate on YouTube because the comment format and interaction controls don't really allow for comprehensive, fair debate.

Quote

...to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.

Several of our regulars have come from YouTube and can speak from experience. I've debated a few ex-YouTubers including Jarrah White, and I can say that they are charlatans. By that I mean they profess knowledge and understanding they clearly don't have, and are clearly trying to fool their audiences into believing they are as well-informed as they claim. White even went back to the third-party forum where I debated him and deleted all of his posts so that he could then lie about it back on his YouTube channel. Similarly Bart Sibrel claimed on his YouTube channel that his invitation to participate in a U.K. Channel 4 program that I was also in had been rescinded when the producers were unable to refute his claims. That's a bald-faced lie; Sibrel was dropped from the cast because he demanded an exorbitant fee. So when I say so many of the YouTubers on this point are charlatans, it's because I know them to be. Before Ralph Rene died, we filmed him for the History Channel for an unaired pilot, and all he could do was whine about how all the other conspiracy theorists had robbed him of his living by allegedly stealing his material and passing it off as their own. These people know exactly what they're doing and who their audience is.

I've been listening and responding to conspiracy spew since the late 1990s. You can hardly accuse me and the others here for allegedly not considering other people's observations and opinions. We have listened patiently to people who repeat the same debunked rubbish over and over again, every one of them thinking it was something new and earth-shattering. You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard before and already debunked a hundred times already. So it's going to be really hard for you to succeed with the "You're all so closed-minded" ploy.

Quote

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

You're telling us what "there would have to be," but you don't say what or how it was done, or show any evidence that it was done. Telling us what the premise would have to be in order for your belief to hold is not the same thing as proving the premise. This is all too common in conspiracy-related argumentation. The holes in the theory are simply plugged with speculation, accompanied by no evidence at all. This reinforces a sort of inferential way of reasoning. You've convinced yourself that the missions were a hoax, so that becomes your foundation on which to speculation that somewhere, somehow, something must have been done to solve the problems your theory raises.

Quote

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told...

Where is your evidence for this? We don't even believe everything we tell each other on this site. The other people have a contest to give out virtual T-shirts to people who catch me in an error. You on the other hand seem to have believed a lot of the nonsense YouTubers have fed you, with little if any attempt to verify their claims. You've even gone as far as suggesting above that YouTube is your trustworthy source and that you don't have to study anything in order to properly interpret what its contributors are telling you.

Quote

...as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources...

The reliability of the source of information is indeed a factor, but mostly this ends up being an ad hominem ploy to avoid having to face contrary evidence because "it comes from NASA," or some such nonsense. As far as simply believing what we're told, you clearly don't know your audience very well. A few of us are professionally qualified in the areas that we speak on regarding the hoax claim, such as photography, photographic analysis, film and theater stagecraft, engineering, geology and science, radio communications, and so forth. And you'll find that many of us can back up our explanations of things with details and demonstrations. In contrast, when asked to substantiate the foundation for your beliefs and expectations, you mostly seem to be relying on intuition and YouTube.

Quote

...you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

You seem to be groping for excuses not to read information that challenges your belief.

Quote

At the start of the first alleged practice transmission...

Actually one of the broadcasts that Sibrel tries to tell you was only a practice session really was broadcast. He didn't know that because he really did no research into Apollo before trying to make a quick buck off of it.

Quote

...when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk.

No, you hear a noise that Sibrel insists is a person saying the word "talk." He doesn't try to interpret any of the other crosstalk garbles that happen all over in the Apollo audio.

Quote

One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe...

No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open. Some of us are old enough to have owned and used vidicon-based video cameras.

Quote

...which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

Or that TV cameras work differently than people intuitively expect, such as when they have manual apertures and color vidicon pickup tubes. You've just swallowed Sibrel's nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Here's a hint: Sibrel doesn't have much experience with that equipment either.

Quote

So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

Have you see the footage from Apollo 13? From Apollo 8? Do you realize that there is more evidence than just for Apollo 11?

I second Jay’s comment about cambo’s claim about the “designers obviously new [sic] they were designing something that wouldn’t work”. I used to work for Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson (long after Apollo); cambo obviously has no experience or understanding of space projects and the people who make them happen.

Go get a good Blu-Ray transfer of Mary Poppins from a 70mm print. It dates to the same time as the Moon landings. Have a look at Dick Van Dyke's wire-assisted dance dressed as a rag doll for the Baron's birthday.

That dance was from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), not Mary Poppins (1964). Both films have great wire-work.